Guitar Gear Forum

Wife and I are considering trading in her Escape towards one. $20k, 40MPG and a 1500lb load capacity. Seems perfect as her daily and for weekend projects.

I think they're really cool too. If I could live with a smaller truck, I'd get one of these before I'd get a Ranger. Rangers look awesome, but they still have a tiny bed, and only tow 3500lbs. So, neither can do big truck stuff, really, which makes the Maverick the more compelling of the two to me because of the pricepoint.

I have a Supercrew F150, and it's got the 5'4" bed. I hate the short bed on it. I haul my 4wheeler, dirtbikes, MTBs, and kayaks in it, and I can't close the tailgate for any of those except the MTB. A smaller bed would be even worse.

Loop wrote:I think they're really cool too. If I could live with a smaller truck, I'd get one of these before I'd get a Ranger. Rangers look awesome, but they still have a tiny bed, and only tow 3500lbs. So, neither can do big truck stuff, really, which makes the Maverick the more compelling of the two to me because of the pricepoint.

I have a Supercrew F150, and it's got the 5'4" bed. I hate the short bed on it. I haul my 4wheeler, dirtbikes, MTBs, and kayaks in it, and I can't close the tailgate for any of those except the MTB. A smaller bed would be even worse.

Ideally I'd love a longbed maverick, a full 6' bed would be amazing. However for 99% of what I want to do with the truck the small bed would work. The fact that its wide enough for a full 4'x8' sheet of ply and they've designed it with stuff like that in mind is really selling me on it.

Front wheel drive unibody cars with a light bed attached. If you don’t need to tow anything or haul anything heavy I’m sure they’d be okay. The 40mpg hybrid has a CVT of that matters to y’all. I personally hate CVTs but some don’t mind at all.


The Ranger can be equipped to tow 7500lbs, the Jeep can do up to 7650, and both offer bed extenders to increase bed space. Both are significantly more since they’re rwd based body on frame trucks.

I agree with Pickle. Im sure they’ll sell a ton to the people that were convinced car based mini SUVs were a good idea.

Dave wrote:Front wheel drive unibody cars with a light bed attached. If you don’t need to tow anything or haul anything heavy I’m sure they’d be okay. The 40mpg hybrid has a CVT of that matters to y’all. I personally hate CVTs but some don’t mind at all.


The Ranger can be equipped to tow 7500lbs, the Jeep can do up to 7650, and both offer bed extenders to increase bed space. Both are significantly more since they’re rwd based body on frame trucks.

I agree with Pickle. Im sure they’ll sell a ton to the people that were convinced car based mini SUVs were a good idea.

I love my Tiguan

duncan wrote:I love my Tiguan

I bet you do, bud. Maybe you can look at the Maverick for your next car.

I can't get past the short bed's on any of that style vehicle.

The short bed is a deal breaker to me too.

I’m kind of thinking about one.

I’ve grown tired of the Super Crew F150. I really don’t need this big-ass tub, though it has been nice while doing camping trips and packing all sorts of extra stuff for a 0-2 year old. Plus getting detoured down some ATV trails up in the wilderness made me appreciate the smaller trucks I’ve had in the past.

Really, if If’s and But’s were candies and nuts, I’d be driving a 4Runner, but I feel it would be irresponsible to drop that kind of coin today. (not that they are really crazy in price, mostly me just being gun shy. Even though I would drive that fucking thing into the ground if it’s even possible.)

GuitarBilly wrote:The short bed is a deal breaker to me too.

I do wish it was a 6 ft bed, but 4.5ft isn't too bad.

This is a ute in trucks clothing but it'd really be handy for me.

they look nice and that's a good price but when I finally buy my truck, I'm going with a big gas guzzling Hemi V8 Ram 4x4

my Frontier is no beast by any standard..... though it can supposedly haul 7700lbs provided the trailer has independent brakes.... the bed isn't that large at 5' deep, and I lose about 8" at the back because I put one of those rolling lock covers on it, which isn't a big deal for me since its not like I'm planning on loading up lots of shit in my bed, just my rig and some extra shit at most which will fit really easily or a cooler and a few bags if I'm going to a beach house for a weekend........ BUT... it does have 4 Wheel drive with high and low ratios, 6 speed manual gear box and the turbo diesel puts out around 450nm of torque....so it's no slouch either.... on average I get about 21 MPG but on longer drives I've gotten up to 26mpg....

I'd be wary of a front wheel drive pickup since there will be even less weight in the rear so the back end could likely get real lose on you and I'm yet to drive a CVT vehicle I like...

Marc G wrote:I'd be wary of a front wheel drive pickup since there will be even less weight in the rear so the back end could likely get real lose on you and I'm yet to drive a CVT vehicle I like...

That's not really accurate. It will drive like any FWD car because it is basically a FWD car. The bed will likely be heavier than the rear structure of a typical unibody car. Trucks break loose in the rear because the power is being applied there and you're trying to push the motor and the rest of the car. You add weight to increase the frictional force between the tire and the ground (grip).

With a FWD vehicle all the power and the weight is in the front. You're just dragging along the rest of the car which is much lighter relative to the front.

Also this is an eCVT, not a CVT in a typical sense. There are real gears and the electric motor is integrated into the gearbox.

I think this thing is a cool option for the right people and the price is pretty good.

I picked up a used 2009 Ford Ranger about 2 1/2 years ago with a 6 foot bed and it's been awesome for transporting band gear, hauling trash, lawn debris, and hauling flooring and materials and tools (big stuff like table saws etc.) from home depot and Lowe's. So I can definitely see the value in a smaller truck. It would be nice having something bigger sometimes, but it's all down to what you need.

Just looked at the Maverick.

Woof.

If I'm getting a small truck, it's going to be a Tacoma or Ranger.

Marc G wrote:my Frontier is no beast by any standard..... though it can supposedly haul 7700lbs provided the trailer has independent brakes.... the bed isn't that large at 5' deep, and I lose about 8" at the back because I put one of those rolling lock covers on it, which isn't a big deal for me since its not like I'm planning on loading up lots of shit in my bed, just my rig and some extra shit at most which will fit really easily or a cooler and a few bags if I'm going to a beach house for a weekend........ BUT... it does have 4 Wheel drive with high and low ratios, 6 speed manual gear box and the turbo diesel puts out around 450nm of torque....so it's no slouch either.... on average I get about 21 MPG but on longer drives I've gotten up to 26mpg....

I'd be wary of a front wheel drive pickup since there will be even less weight in the rear so the back end could likely get real lose on you and I'm yet to drive a CVT vehicle I like...

They'll convince the same group of people that moved from econo cars to econo mini SUVs that they now need econo trucks. It's a pretty big demo of easily swayed people. Personally I feel most of this crowd would be best served with a Prius for the majority of their driving, and the occasional pickup rental or delivery service when they need a sheet of plywood delivered.

Fwiw I would absolutely consider the new Frontier if I was looking at Rangers/Tacomas/etc. Real frame, proper drivetrain, and legit capability.

Dave wrote:

Marc G wrote:Prius for the majority of their driving, and the occasional pickup rental or delivery service when they need a sheet of plywood delivered.

This is what I do



I like our MDX but the 17mpg premium gas is rough

JonVengeance wrote:I think this thing is a cool option for the right people and the price is pretty good.

I picked up a used 2009 Ford Ranger about 2 1/2 years ago with a 6 foot bed and it's been awesome for transporting band gear, hauling trash, lawn debris, and hauling flooring and materials and tools (big stuff like table saws etc.) from home depot and Lowe's. So I can definitely see the value in a smaller truck. It would be nice having something bigger sometimes, but it's all down to what you need.

This is the kind of truck I like. I had a older Ranger (93) for almost 10 years and it was a great truck. Used car prices are crazy right now unfortunately. Also, buying older cars here on the East Coast is different than buying them in CA or NV. Back there, I could buy a 10+ y.o. vehicle with no rust at all, here it's a different story and it's harder to find older cars in good shape so I probably will buy something new when I am ready to buy again.
That said, if I am getting a truck it needs to have a bed that's at least 6ft. I can get 4.5ft of space just by lowering the seats on my little Tracker, don't need a truck for that
But I think I am going for a mini van for my next car
I don't really tow anything and all I need is space to carry music gear so a minivan or small SVU seems more logical.

Those older rangers are legit.

My 98 Ranger had almost 200k on it and ran like a top. But the frame rotted and the rearend siezed up. In a desert climate, I bet it would have hit 250k no sweat. It would have been worth fixing the rearend.

Especially given how many of them are in salvage yards. Those rear axles are plentiful but def not worth replacing on a truck with frame rot.

The old Ranger used Mazda motors for many years iirc

Other way around. Mazdas were rebadged Ford Rangers.

Huh I thought they had the Mazda motor too anywho keep on truckin !

Dave wrote:Especially given how many of them are in salvage yards. Those rear axles are plentiful but def not worth replacing on a truck with frame rot.

One of my best friends is a master mechanic. I wish I snapped a pic of his face after he looked under my truck

He was horrified.